#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[tims4wins]

That makes more sense although I thought I read there was footage of McNally walking directly past a league official on his way out of the locker room and the official didn't say boo but I may be slightly wrong on that.

Edit: I think the video was from the sitting room outside of the refs locker room. Also, the Wells report says Anderson measured the balls in the shower room so obviously no video of that.

However, the more I think about it, the more fishy it sounds. Why would he go into the shower room to measure the footballs? Maybe because the NFL knew there couldn't be any cameras in there so no one could prove that he DIDN'T measure them.

Also, is it not possible that the shower room is warmer than the rest of the locker room, if not downright likely? If the shower room was warmer and the Pats balls measured 12.5 then of course they would come down further than predicted by starting at a lower temperature.

This may be some conspiracy level shit but I am really wondering about both of these scenarios.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I hope that post was a joke. That's tinfoil hat stuff which is crazy even for this.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Immediately after donning the gold jacket signifying entry into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Thursday night, former NFL G.M. Ron Wolf was congratulated by Commissioner Roger Goodell. And Wolf had a message for Goodell, as captured by the NFL Network microphones.

Way to go on that Brady thing, Wolf said.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/07/ron-wolf-to-goodell-way-to-go-on-that-brady-thing/

F U, Ron Wolf. Way to enhance your big hall of fame moment. (Unless you were slamming the commish, in which case not so much F U as Bravo.) Oh, and F U, Rog. Laugh it up while the walls, we hope and pray, start tumbling down. What a pair of DBs.

Edit: typo

Here's the video. Goodell is the worst.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25262447/watch-goodell-laughs-wildly-when-told-way-to-go-on-the-brady-thing

 

[Ed Hillel]

Goodell laughs like a psycho.

 

[tims4wins]

I hope that post was a joke. That's tinfoil hat stuff which is crazy even for this.

 
Only kinda sorta. I mean who the hell knows at this point.
 
The point about the shower room possibly being warmer than the rest of the locker room could be valid though, IMO.

 

[Manball]

My crazy theory:
 
The reason the balls were overinflated for that Jets game was that (since teams were allegedly worried that the Pats were deflating balls for years) someone in the Jets organization (Rex?) pressured the refs to make sure there was enough air in the balls.  The refs, who had never really taken this stuff seriously, got the game balls and (without measuring them) put a few pumps in them just to make sure they were the proper size - just to quiet down the Jets people.  The balls most likely were the proper size when the refs got them, so  the extra pumps put the balls at 16 PSI.
 
It would definitely be a team like the Rex-led Jets who would try to make a big deal about this before a game.

 

[Leather]

Crazy theories are like Kilgore's posts:  they're everywhere and they all add up to nothing.

 

[drbretto]

My counter theory:
 
The balls were overinflated for that game because no one cared. It wasn't a thing at all, so the balls were inflated more or less by feel randomly and whoever inflated those particular balls left the pump in a little too long. That's all. Brady notices, checks the rulebook and decides to just make it easy on everyone. He wants it to be 12.5. Until this point in football history, no one ever cared. But, naturally, people are maybe turned off by this little nitpicky comment, which is amplified by the rampant hatorade, so once people thought they had an opportunity to expose him for being a hypocrite about it, the people involved got overzealous. Once it became a bigger story than anyone expected, they had to justify it (to themselves as well as the public) so they didn't look like they've been just waiting for Brady to fuck up some day so they can take him down a peg. 

 

[edmunddantes]

The referee from that Jets game? This year is his first year in the league office. Retired from refereeing. Why? Who knows? Maybe he was one of the refs that graded out so poorly that Blandino and crew fired him.

All I know is that around the same time all these refs were being questioned the NFL was going through a pruning of the Refereee ranks with about 8 or so officials being told we don't need your services anymore.

One more motivation for the officials to make sure that during an official investigation to say things like "this has never happened in 19 years" "o followed the book exactly" etc.

When you know your company is going through layoffs. You don't volunteer that you may have made a mistake on a huge project. You say you did everything right, and it must have been something else that caused the problem.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I know that many will disagree with Gasper, but I think he makes a compelling case for settlement at one game with essentially no admission from Tom.
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/06/settle-deflategate-now-total-victory-not-possible/ZXpVFrWioaya9jOCw4pT0N/story.html
 
I even like his formulation:
 

 
Brady could serve a one-game suspension, and the NFL could acknowledge in writing that, while Brady was in a position to possibly possess awareness of the alleged deflation of footballs in the AFC Championship game, there is no irrefutable or reliable evidence that indicates Brady was “at least generally aware” of anything. Neither side would get what it wants, but both sides would get what they need, closure.
 

 
Many here and elsewhere don't want Tom agreeing to anything short of no games on principle.  They worry about even a one game suspension being on his resume...for very possibly having done nothing wrong.
 
But in addition to the points made by Gasper and many others, including me, I don't think even a "no games" verdict from Berman is going to prevent the opportunists and morons from spouting off about Tom forever.  Those who want to denigrate Tom have their ammunition and even a total victory in Court will not alter that.  It wont even slow them down.  So, for that reason, the reasons noted by Gasper and the general aversion I have in trusting a Judge to make the right decision, I would run to the deal Gasper advocates if it is on the table.  That said, it being on the table might be pipe dreams and fairy dust given we are dealing with someone who would laugh as he did at Wolf's idiotic remark.

 

[Manball]

Drbretto:
 
I get that you're making an Occam's razor argument (and admit that you're probably right), but this doesn't account for two things.  First, that, at some point, a rumor got started in the league that the Patriots were deflating footballs; and second, that (I believe) Brady is the type of player that concerns himself with ball prep, including the inflation of the football.
 
Is there anything that actually says where this rumor got started?  Or is the first time anyone hears about it from that Colts email?  As an attorney, I find it crazy that Wells didn't try to nail down where this rumor started.  I would have reached out to other teams.  Even if this was a prosecutorial investigation, that's something I would go after.  The rumor would motivate a team to inform the refs -- maybe the Colts were the first, but maybe not.  The Colts may have been the first team to make an "official" plea to the league, but other teams may have dealt with it on the ref level.
 
With regard to the second point, I'm not saying Brady directly anything regarding deflating the balls (I think he is completely innocent), but I also think he knew how he liked it -- well before that Jets game.

 

[Manball]

 [deleted]

 

[troparra]

My crazy theory:
 
The reason the balls were overinflated for that Jets game...

 
I agree with drbretto for the most part. In addition, when they reinflate balls, I'm not sure they recheck the pressure after they do this.  They were in a huge rush at halftime of the AFC championship game, did they have time to add air to the Pats balls and then recheck the pressure, and then go and check the Colts balls?
 
Interestingly, the device they use for reinflation in this video: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/22/deflategate-video-how-nfl-officials-check-game-ball-pressure (go to 0:50 mark) has no gauge on it.  Maybe they get a ball at 12.0 psi, and with their automatic air pump they crank in 2-3 lbs of pressure without knowing it.  If you happen to be using a gauge that reads low, which is probably 50-50 considering how inaccurate the gauges have been shown to be, then you can easily get to 16.0 just by general half assedness.
 
(And just for old times sake, go to the 0:36 mark of the video to watch the official let all sorts of air out of the ball before approving it, showing us all exactly how precise the ball checking procedure is). 

 

[ivanvamp]

My counter theory:
 
The balls were overinflated for that game because no one cared. It wasn't a thing at all, so the balls were inflated more or less by feel randomly and whoever inflated those particular balls left the pump in a little too long. That's all. Brady notices, checks the rulebook and decides to just make it easy on everyone. He wants it to be 12.5. Until this point in football history, no one ever cared. But, naturally, people are maybe turned off by this little nitpicky comment, which is amplified by the rampant hatorade, so once people thought they had an opportunity to expose him for being a hypocrite about it, the people involved got overzealous. Once it became a bigger story than anyone expected, they had to justify it (to themselves as well as the public) so they didn't look like they've been just waiting for Brady to fuck up some day so they can take him down a peg. 

 
I think this is pretty close to the truth.  There is NO WAY in hell referees really spent time checking the air pressure of the footballs to any degree of precision.  Maybe one or two, then give the rest the feel test.  Brady could tell they were too pumped up, complained about it.  Gave the jamokies a bunch of crap about it (which is what they were talking about in their texts).  He then found the rulebook and told them to go to 12.5, because that's the lowest they could legally go and he liked them on the softer end.  
 
Nobody knew about the IGL, so when the balls in the AFCCG got measured to be lower, everyone went bezerk, fed by Mortensen's erroneous story.  And then the NFL, instead of doing the right thing, backed itself into the corner and it became a matter of Goodell's "honor" and power.  

 

[Leather]

I know that many will disagree with Gasper, but I think he makes a compelling case for settlement at one game with essentially no admission from Tom.
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/06/settle-deflategate-now-total-victory-not-possible/ZXpVFrWioaya9jOCw4pT0N/story.html
 
I even like his formulation:
 
 
Many here and elsewhere don't want Tom agreeing to anything short of no games on principle.  They worry about even a one game suspension being on his resume...for very possibly having done nothing wrong.
 
But in addition to the points made by Gasper and many others, including me, I don't think even a "no games" verdict from Berman is going to prevent the opportunists and morons from spouting off about Tom forever.  Those who want to denigrate Tom have their ammunition and even a total victory in Court will not alter that.  It wont even slow them down.  So, for that reason, the reasons noted by Gasper and the general aversion I have in trusting a Judge to make the right decision, I would run to the deal Gasper advocates if it is on the table.  That said, it being on the table might be pipe dreams and fairy dust given we are dealing with someone who would laugh as he did at Wolf's idiotic remark.

 
Why does Brady (or the NFL, for that matter) "need" closure?   The NFL has dragged this ball of shit out for 7 months; another few weeks isn't going to make a difference.  And, as we've discussed here, Brady is in this (at least in part) for the sake of the NFLPA, to try and slam Goodell's disciplinary practices for the good of the union.
 
Settling achieves nothing except allowing the press to move on.

 

[TheoShmeo]

 
Why does Brady (or the NFL, for that matter) "need" closure?   The NFL has dragged this ball of shit out for 7 months; another few weeks isn't going to make a difference.  And, as we've discussed here, Brady is in this (at least in part) for the sake of the NFLPA, to try and slam Goodell's disciplinary practices for the good of the union.
 
Settling achieves nothing except allowing the press to move on.

Even if you discount the closure aspect (and I disagree, as being able to move on with this thing resolved HAS to remove some weight from Brady's back and allow him to stop spending ANY time on this BS), settlement assuredly achieves more than nothing for Tom.  It eliminates the risk of missing four games, the greater stain that a 4-game suspension would have on his legacy and the loss of a 4-game pay check, among other things.
 
True, in the fight to bring down Goodell and make him lose yet again in Court, it achieves very little.  My hope is that the transcripts are damning enough that the resulting media attention will move that along, even without Brady winning in Court.
 
On the latter, a friend on FB compiled the following, many or all of which are noted here, but it's nice to have them in one place:
 


 

10 Thoughtful Writers Sort Out 'Deflategate'

August 6, 2015 at 11:58am
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan

The headlines are piling up.  Here, friends, are 10 people who approached the Tom Brady/Roger Goodell mess with actual fact-finding and reason. None write for Boston news outlets (though there is a Boston connection or 2).  I now will return to my life.
 
Roger Goodell misled me on Tom Brady. I won’t trust him again. (Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/

Roger Goodell's Fatal Mistake: Tom Brady An Innocent Man (Cold Hard Football Facts)
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/roger-goodells-fatal-mistake-tom-brady-an-innocent-man/33948/

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is biggest loser in DeflateGate debacle (NY Daily News/Mike Lupica)
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/lupica-goodell-biggest-loser-deflategate-debacle-article-1.2312030

Roger Goodell's manipulation of Tom Brady's testimony leaves NFL on slippery slope (Yahoo Sports)
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=fb

Rehashing The Worst NFL Offseason Ever (Canal St. Chronicles, New Orleans)
http://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/2015/8/3/9083163/rehashing-the-worst-nfl-offseason-ever

Patriot Games: Deflategate and the Golden Boy That Never Was (grantland.com/ Esquire’s Charlie Pierce)
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/patriot-games-deflategate-and-the-golden-boy-that-never-was/

Tom Brady: Sympathy for the Devil (Rolling Stone)
http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/tom-brady-sympathy-for-the-devil-20150731

Goodell got another one wrong on Brady suspension (Philadelphia Inquirer)
http://articles.philly.com/2015-07-22/sports/64687813_1_roger-goodell-four-game-suspension-nfl

This Is Protecting The Shield? (Peter King/Sports Illustrated)
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/08/06/roger-goodell-nfl-deflategate-dez-bryant-fight-chip-kelly

Roger Goodell blatantly lied to make Tom Brady look dishonest (Larry Brown Sports)
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/roger-goodell-lied-tom-brady-dishonest/269436
 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

The problem with thinking like Gasper's is that it assumes something in between is reasonable because there are two initial starting positions.   That may make sense when it's a commercial negotiation (at least, sort of---not really advising his way of thinking there either) but here, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the 4 games starting position has any legitimacy whatsoever.  Allowing that to be an 'anchor' impacting ones thinking about where a reasonable place to land is, effectively, legitimizing insanity.

There range of legitimate punishments is zero to $25k fine on current facts and precedent.  If the NFL can make a case something is different here, that's fine..though rather late in the game for that to happen...and until and unless it happens, it is nuts to allow oneself to get caught up in the baloney anchoring of the NFL's opening position.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The problem with thinking like Gasper's is that it assumes something in between is reasonable because there are two initial starting positions.   That may make sense when it's a commercial negotiation (at least, sort of---not really advising his way of thinking there either) but here, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the 4 games starting position has any legitimacy whatsoever.  Allowing that to be an 'anchor' impacting ones thinking about where a reasonable place to land is, effectively, legitimizing insanity.
There range of legitimate punishments is zero to $25k fine on current facts and precedent.  If the NFL can make a case something is different here, that's fine..though rather late in the game for that to happen...and until and unless it happens, it is nuts to allow oneself to get caught up in the baloney anchoring of the NFL's opening position.

I agree that the 4 games is insanity and that paying it any legitimacy is nuts.
 
That said, however you get there, if you end up with one-game and no admission, do you not do that because the NFL's starting position is batshit crazy? 
 
Let me be clear, I am quite dubious that the NFL gets to that penalty.  Partially because they are anchored where they are and partially because they are denizens of the deepest part of hell.  But that would not stop me from hitting the bid if it got to that.  And it would not stop me from making some efforts to get there.

 

[drbretto]

Drbretto:
 
I get that you're making an Occam's razor argument (and admit that you're probably right), but this doesn't account for two things.  First, that, at some point, a rumor got started in the league that the Patriots were deflating footballs; and second, that (I believe) Brady is the type of player that concerns himself with ball prep, including the inflation of the football.
 
Is there anything that actually says where this rumor got started?  Or is the first time anyone hears about it from that Colts email?  As an attorney, I find it crazy that Wells didn't try to nail down where this rumor started.  I would have reached out to other teams.  Even if this was a prosecutorial investigation, that's something I would go after.  The rumor would motivate a team to inform the refs -- maybe the Colts were the first, but maybe not.  The Colts may have been the first team to make an "official" plea to the league, but other teams may have dealt with it on the ref level.
 
With regard to the second point, I'm not saying Brady directly anything regarding deflating the balls (I think he is completely innocent), but I also think he knew how he liked it -- well before that Jets game.

 
 
Actually, it sort of does. If the league in general was cavalier about the inflation levels for years and they had been a bit on the hard side, now suddenly Brady's balls feel squishier than what everyone is used to, so they cry foul. Throwing in that Brady was also the one that circled the rule in the rule book for the officials and that it was a petition headlined by him and Manning that sets the narrative about how into ball prep he is.

 

[Koufax]

Agreed (as the TheoShmeo).  Brady has to take into account the risk that the judge will simply defer to the arbitration process, as flawed as it was.

 

[Valek123]

I know that many will disagree with Gasper, but I think he makes a compelling case for settlement at one game with essentially no admission from Tom.
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/06/settle-deflategate-now-total-victory-not-possible/ZXpVFrWioaya9jOCw4pT0N/story.html
 
I even like his formulation:
 
Many here and elsewhere don't want Tom agreeing to anything short of no games on principle.  They worry about even a one game suspension being on his resume...for very possibly having done nothing wrong.
 
But in addition to the points made by Gasper and many others, including me, I don't think even a "no games" verdict from Berman is going to prevent the opportunists and morons from spouting off about Tom forever.  Those who want to denigrate Tom have their ammunition and even a total victory in Court will not alter that.  It wont even slow them down.  So, for that reason, the reasons noted by Gasper and the general aversion I have in trusting a Judge to make the right decision, I would run to the deal Gasper advocates if it is on the table.  That said, it being on the table might be pipe dreams and fairy dust given we are dealing with someone who would laugh as he did at Wolf's idiotic remark.

 
Why settle at this point if you are Tom?  What possible reason does he have to admit any of this at this point?  I just don't get the argument at all, it would be horrific for the NFLPA & Tom and continue to set the precedent that the league can do whatever the hell it wants with no proof against one of it's most popular athletes.  He has EVERY reason to fight this all the way at this point, and being an uber competitive person I would be absolutely shocked if he gave a shit about the distraction at all and was more focused on revenge/vindication.
 
It's absolutely about principle and to be totally frank I'd rather see him have a horrific court ruling uphold the suspension than cave against this absolutely fabricated bull shit event.
 
At this point it's barely Tom vs the NFL, it's now the NFLPA vs the NFL almost entirely and Smith showing up at the table shows that.  The NFL has EVERYTHING to lose, and there will be a lockout IMO when this contract is up unless Goodell is long gone and someone with actual integrity replaces him and cleans house.  The NFL and FIFA really aren't that different at this point, both are a complete joke up-top.

 

[DavidTai]

I don't like Theo's conclusion about accepting that position, but I think the effort alone would be enough to show the judge that Brady at least made a good faith effort to compromise on what's a really stupid position to start with, and that the NFL isn't even close to trying.
 
I just think accepting such a deal will only encourage the NFL to -start- with even stupider positions down the road, and for that reason, I wouldn't -jump- on it if I were the NFLPA.

 

[Stitch01]

 
Why settle at this point if you are Tom?  What possible reason does he have to admit any of this at this point?  I just don't get the argument at all, it would be horrific for the NFLPA & Tom and continue to set the precedent that the league can do whatever the hell it wants with no proof against one of it's most popular athletes.  He has EVERY reason to fight this all the way at this point, and being an uber competitive person I would be absolutely shocked if he gave a shit about the distraction at all and was more focused on revenge/vindication.
 
It's absolutely about principle and to be totally frank I'd rather see him have a horrific court ruling uphold the suspension than cave against this absolutely fabricated bull shit event.
 
At this point it's barely Tom vs the NFL, it's now the NFLPA vs the NFL almost entirely and Smith showing up at the table shows that.  The NFL has EVERYTHING to lose, and there will be a lockout IMO when this contract is up unless Goodell is long gone and someone with actual integrity replaces him and cleans house.  The NFL and FIFA really aren't that different at this point, both are a complete joke up-top.

The reasons would be 1) Bradys lawyers have told him that his chances in court arent greater and that is the best deal out there 2) everything we know about Brady suggests he lives, eats, and breathes the next Super Bowl. Missing four games has a much bigger effect on the 2015 season than missing one game. There's some evidence Brady just wants this behind him before the season (his facebook post and requested court schedule)

I want him to take this to court if he's so inclined regardless of consequences to the team, but he might take a game to be done with it at this point. Two weeks ago I would have said no way they get to a settlement, now Id actually guess (key word, guess) its the most likely outcome

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I agree that the 4 games is insanity and that paying it any legitimacy is nuts.
 
That said, however you get there, if you end up with one-game and no admission, do you not do that because the NFL's starting position is batshit crazy? 
 
Let me be clear, I am quite dubious that the NFL gets to that penalty.  Partially because they are anchored where they are and partially because they are denizens of the deepest part of hell.  But that would not stop me from hitting the bid if it got to that.  And it would not stop me from making some efforts to get there.

 
If it were 1 preseason game (or even 2) I'd consider it, only because I'd make sure to leak that Brady wasn't going to play in those anyway.  But no, I don't think settling at 1 regular season game makes any sense here for Brady, or for the NFLPA.

For Brady, while people say now that his legacy is already tarnished, I think after some time it will matter a lot whether this lands at 'zero' or '1 game' and I think he cares as much or more about that as the number of games.  I also think he likes the hand he has here at this point.
 
For NFLPA, this is the biggest battle yet in a larger war.  For them, even 1 game implicitly accepts the NFL's premise that they can make up rules and enforce them on players.   They should never do this.
 
I see a real politic argument for 1 game, but I do not think it makes sense for the key players, and I do think for Gasper it is falsely accepting a ridiculous initial position from the NFL

 

[Valek123]

The reasons would be 1) Bradys lawyers have told him that his chances in court arent greater and that is the best deal out there 2) everything we know about Brady suggests he lives, eats, and breathes the next Super Bowl. Missing four games has a much bigger effect on the 2015 season than missing one game. There's some evidence Brady just wants this behind him before the season (his facebook post and requested court schedule)

I want him to take this to court if he's so inclined regardless of consequences to the team, but he might take a game to be done with it at this point. Two weeks ago I would have said no way they get to a settlement, now Id actually guess (key word, guess) its the most likely outcome

 
I hear the top part, but Brady has also been an tremendous union supporter and has taken pay concessions in the past to ensure his team is better around him(plus he makes the "Carry around money" in the family so the financial pressure is non-existant).  This strikes me as a person who recognizes how his actions play in the ecosystem he lives in, and he has to understand that this is beyond him now - it's about protecting players from this in the future.  Two weeks ago I was actually thinking the other way, but now the stakes are too high for the union and change must be forced to allow the league to be successful.  It's too far down the road and the key for me has been Smith showing up, that feels like a real change in the union's mentality on this.  Players are coming around to this situation and recognizing it for what it is, they want change.  Brady signed his name as a front-line person before and I just can't see him not pushing this to the end.  I agree showing an effort to come to agreement is necessary but I would be absolutely stunned for the 50th time in this if he takes any regular season punishment.  It's defied all logic so far though, and I freely admit I don't have a clue...  Popcorn anyone?

 

[tims4wins]

I could care less about the legacy stuff, but even one game is problematic to me because it would be against the Steelers who could well contend for an AFC bye. I see a lot of parity in the AFC and it could be a year where 11-5 is good enough for a bye with the right tie breakers so winning H2H against Pittsburgh could be really important. Think of how important the Colts and Broncos wins were last year.

 

[Leather]

I continue to think that the need to settle, because that's what the judge wants, is overstated.  
 
No lawyer worth a damn is going to advice his client to settle if they think it's a shitty deal, simply because the judge wants them to.   Sure, you make an effort and figure out where the sticking points are so you don't appear obstinate (and because it's always a good idea to try and reach a common ground), but saying "Jeez, you know, I think this is a shit deal but the judge is going to be really mad at all of us if we don't settle, and he's scary." is straight outta Harry Winkler's character in "Arrested Development."
 
Settlement conferences are routine.  Settling is in the best interest of both parties only when it actually is in the interest of both parties.  As PedroKsBambino alludes; this isn't a financial situation where the cost of litigation against the amount being sought is a factor, nor is it a situation where both sides can even accurately objectify the value of what they are fighting over.    It's less like a typical contract dispute, and more akin to litigation over the ownership of a piece of art that's belonged in the family for generations.   Family member A isn't going to say "Fine, take this heirloom and give me $100,000, even though I think that's a shitty deal, because the judge is going to yell at me if I don't."     
 
And besides, any judge that deliberately prejudices a party because they opted not to settle is not a very good judge.  He can pressure all he wants, but once the settlement attempts reach a dead end, he doesn't get to say "Well, Mr. Brady, you had a pretty good offer in front of you that you didn't take, and for inconveniencing me by making me do my job, I'm disregarding your testimony and ruling in favor of the NFL.  Sorry!"  (Which is not to say that he can't admonish Brady after the fact and say "You should have taken that offer, because you have no case.")

 

[Ralphwiggum]

If Tom decides that he wants to settle because he's nervous about missing the full four games then I won't fault him for that.  But he doesn't owe anyone jack fucking shit in terms of what he personally wants to do here.
 
If I were him I wouldn't settle or anything less than a fine.  Fuck it, if he misses four games that'll suck but the Pats will figure out a way to keep it afloat until he is back.  The way the NFL has conducted itself here towards a guy who, in a league full of fucking criminals, has never done a single thing in his career to embarrass his team or the league (other than a strange picture of him holding a goat).  I wouldn't have it in me to settle and I hope he doesn't either.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Agreed (as the TheoShmeo).  Brady has to take into account the risk that the judge will simply defer to the arbitration process, as flawed as it was.

Brady has to take into account that Judge Berman is incompetent? That is a terrible strategy.

 

[drbretto]

I don't think Brady cares about anything other than being on the field at this point. I see him settling only if it means not admitting guilt and not missing game. Anything other than that, there's nothing left to lose. I<3ANAL, but from what I see it looks like his chances should be good enough to go all-in if he has to. I don't think he'll have to though. My guess now is that he settles with a fine, no admission of guilt and no games.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

If Tom decides that he wants to settle because he's nervous about missing the full four games then I won't fault him for that.  But he doesn't owe anyone jack fucking shit in terms of what he personally wants to do here.
 
If I were him I wouldn't settle or anything less than a fine.  Fuck it, if he misses four games that'll suck but the Pats will figure out a way to keep it afloat until he is back.  The way the NFL has conducted itself here towards a guy who, in a league full of fucking criminals, has never done a single thing in his career to embarrass his team or the league (other than a strange picture of him holding a goat) is infuriating.  I wouldn't have it in me to settle and I hope he doesn't either.

 

[loshjott]

Strictly football-wise, a 38 yr old QB missing 4 games wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

 

[Bleedred]

 
If it were 1 preseason game (or even 2) I'd consider it, only because I'd make sure to leak that Brady wasn't going to play in those anyway.  But no, I don't think settling at 1 regular season game makes any sense here for Brady, or for the NFLPA.
For Brady, while people say now that his legacy is already tarnished, I think after some time it will matter a lot whether this lands at 'zero' or '1 game' and I think he cares as much or more about that as the number of games.  I also think he likes the hand he has here at this point.
 
For NFLPA, this is the biggest battle yet in a larger war.  For them, even 1 game implicitly accepts the NFL's premise that they can make up rules and enforce them on players.   They should never do this.
 
I see a real politic argument for 1 game, but I do not think it makes sense for the key players, and I do think for Gasper it is falsely accepting a ridiculous initial position from the NFL

Theo's advice is sound coming from a lawyer, but lawyers are notoriously risk averse.  Lawyers, in general, are afraid to take certain risks (it's in our DNA), whereas clients are taking those risks every day, at least with their business.  Brady's business at this point is as much the preservation of his legacy as it is getting on the field for the Patriots for some portion of the first 4 games.  And when I talk about legacy, I'm not concerned about people who will accuse him of being a cheater, regardless of how this comes out.  I'm concerned about how the facts of history will view the event.  If he agrees to a settlement that even sniffs at a suggestion that he had knowledge of intentional ball deflation, then he loses.   I'd take 2 games with the unequivocal statement that he had no knowledge of any intentional deflation, before I accepted 1 game with some suggestion that he knew (recognizing that would never happen).  I think Brady feels the same way.

 

[Dan Murfman]

 
 
 "Jeez, you know, I think this is a shit deal but the judge is going to be really mad at all of us if we don't settle, and he's scary." is straight outta Harry Winkler's character in "Arrested Development."
 

 

[drbretto]

Strictly football-wise, a 38 yr old QB missing 4 games wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

 
For us, yeah. But this same QB eats, sleeps and breathes football and thinks he can play until he's 45. I think he'd lose his goddamn mind sitting those games out.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Hasn't been mentioned in a while, but any admission of wrongdoing by Brady sets him up for repeat offender status (and escalating penalties from Glampers) if another disciplinary issue arises down the road.

 

[mwonow]

If Tom decides that he wants to settle because he's nervous about missing the full four games then I won't fault him for that.  But he doesn't owe anyone jack fucking shit in terms of what he personally wants to do here.
 
If I were him I wouldn't settle or anything less than a fine.  Fuck it, if he misses four games that'll suck but the Pats will figure out a way to keep it afloat until he is back.  The way the NFL has conducted itself here towards a guy who, in a league full of fucking criminals, has never done a single thing in his career to embarrass his team or the league (other than a strange picture of him holding a goat).  I wouldn't have it in me to settle and I hope he doesn't either.

 
I know it shouldn't, but the gap between league officials jumping all over the possibility that footballs were deflated, and following that up with a 24x7 media blitz, and the complete silence regarding a guy who was already suspended for drugs driving 150 MPH with a kid and a loaded semiautomatic in a car reeking of pot...well, it really helps illustrate the fact that there is no connection between league attention/priorities and the world we live in.

 

[Average Reds]

I agree that the 4 games is insanity and that paying it any legitimacy is nuts.
 
That said, however you get there, if you end up with one-game and no admission, do you not do that because the NFL's starting position is batshit crazy? 
 
Let me be clear, I am quite dubious that the NFL gets to that penalty.  Partially because they are anchored where they are and partially because they are denizens of the deepest part of hell.  But that would not stop me from hitting the bid if it got to that.  And it would not stop me from making some efforts to get there.

If my lawyers advised me to take the one game without an admission of guilt I would take it under the flowing conditions:

- Suspension is with pay. (Probably won't get this, but why not ask?)
- Settlement includes a non-disparagement clause with teeth.

To the second point, any leaked story about the settlement that implies guilt or otherwise disparages Brady results in the suspension being vacated or (if already served) a fine equal to Brady's salary for one game. Berman will determine if the agreement is breached.

I'd give on point one but not point 2. The NFL has demonstrated conclusively that a settlement without this clause is worthless.

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
So yes, we're getting the leak.

Who's left to report it, though? SAS flipped on them yesterday, and he's pretty much the bottom of the barrell. Jason Whitlock? Camera crew outside Rob Parker's hot dog stand?

 

[troparra]

 
 http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/22/deflategate-video-how-nfl-officials-check-game-ball-pressure 
 
(And just for old times sake, go to the 0:36 mark of the video to watch the official let all sorts of air out of the ball before approving it, showing us all exactly how precise the ball checking procedure is). 

 
Go to 0:36 of the video and try to reconcile what you see with the below statement from the Wells Report (appendix 1, p. 35 "Multiple Gaugings").   
 

As described below, if the number of needle insertions for a given football is fewer than five, no discernible difference in the recorded pressure would be observed.  

 

[edmunddantes]

Brandon Tierney has flipped. He is now on Brady's side after seeing the transcripts and how the NFL lied about the Brady testimony. Just heard it on the way to work this morning.

He's a notorious NY Jet fan that grew into a NY and now national CBS radio host. When you start losing guys like that it's not a good look for the NFL.

 

[garzooma]

Anyone think the new documentation of the NFL's dishonesty and animus towards players will make more of the concussion victims and their families reject the settlement and continue with their lawsuits?  This article in USA Today says that there are currently 200 of them, including Junior Seau's family.
 

 

[tims4wins]

Good point about the repeat offender thing

edit: directed at harryhooper

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

I've never understood why anyone would factor "admission of guilt" into the settlement.  One game and no admission of guilt?  What?  The NFL can never make him admit guilt, that's not a concession on their part.  And any statement by the NFL that walks back the charges or lessens Brady's offenses is absolutely worthless because it's obviously only being said as part of the settlement.  They've already come out and said that he's a liar and he did these things.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I am not at all suggesting that Brady admit any culpability.  
 
I do think that it's important that the Judge perceive the Brady/NFLPA camp as trying for settlement.  Berman said what he said and he who ignores the Judge when he says anything takes an unnecessary risk of pissing him off and having that pissed off state influence his decision, even on a unconscious basis.
 
But trying to settle and actually doing it are two very different things.  You don't settle to appease the Judge, you settle because the deal is good enough.  For me, one game and no risk of a terrible ruling by a Judge is worth doing, but your mileage may vary.
 
And, HRB, if the Judge rules for the NFL, it is not because he's incompetent, it's because he thinks he has to be uber deferential in the context of the CBA and an arbitration hearing.  I am no labor lawyer, but my sense -- and please correct me if I am wrong -- is that there is a substantial risk that Brady/NFLAPA loses on just that ground.  I can't put a percentage on it but my gut tells me that if this goes to court without a settlement, it's a coin flip.
 
Regarding Tom's age, I don't think he needs to take any games off.  He played a full slate last year, keeps himself in pristine shape and was going as strong as ever in Glendale.  Also, he usually gets better as the season moves along, or at least he did last year, and I am not anxious for him to have his first game in the Pats fifth game rust-wise.  This is hardly a driving point for me, just another one in the mix.
 
PS: Violent agreement RW on what Tom owes us.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Who's left to report it, though? SAS flipped on them yesterday, and he's pretty much the bottom of the barrell. Jason Whitlock? Camera crew outside Rob Parker's hot dog stand?

 
Francesa?

 

[Super Nomario]

Strictly football-wise, a 38 yr old QB missing 4 games wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

He's not just missing games; he's locked out of practice, too. Brady's not going to take a month off, obviously, but five (including the bye) fewer weeks of preparation against live bullets stands a good chance of making him more prone to injury, not less. His one significant injury came in the first quarter of the first game after essentially taking the whole preseason off, for what it's worth.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

 
It eliminates the risk of missing four games, the greater stain that a 4-game suspension would have on his legacy and the loss of a 4-game pay check, among other things.
 

 
Cherry-picking the Legacy™ card you just played.
 
First, that stuff's way overblown. It's a media-created crutch, or girdle, or binky, or whatever you want to call it. It means nothing other than being fodder for guy in the car call-ins or happy-hour arguments or water cooler bull sessions. It's part of the ESPN hot takes starter kit.
 
Second, Legacy™ is way too subjective to quantify - especially in the present time when we're living through said legacy player's career. Being a spokesman for UGG and hanging out in NYC between playoff games tarnished TB's legacy to some folks. After he's done playing - probably years after he's done, when we'll have to work harder to explain just why he was amazing to watch - actual narratives will play out. And I'm betting most of them will be statistical, or based on his on-the-field performance and accomplishments.
 
Third - if we are playing the guessing game for the purposes of this exercise and only considering Legacy™ - then TB taking a one-game suspension is equal to his taking four games. [Again, we're not talking paychecks or missing four regular-season starts. Just the legacy.] If he takes any punishment, regardless of evidence, people legacy-scoring at home will just say "why would he settle if he's innocent?" 
 
The only person that really "knows" if his reputation is truly dinged or damaged is Tom Brady. And even that's a subjective opinion that's a function of the media construct of Legacy™, and can only be answered if we know if Tom Brady truly gives a shit as to what other people think of him.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

I know that many will disagree with Gasper, but I think he makes a compelling case for settlement at one game with essentially no admission from Tom.

 
The logic is fine, but we all know Brady to be ultra competitive. The man does not like to lose at ANYTHING. I'm fairly convinced this is another arena where he won't accept a "loss" (or even a "tie"), which is what any upheld suspension will mean. 
 
Brady will fight because he wants to win outright. That means no suspension and a victory in court.

 

[steveluck7]

Who's left to report it, though? SAS flipped on them yesterday, and he's pretty much the bottom of the barrell. Jason Whitlock? Camera crew outside Rob Parker's hot dog stand?

Felger & Mazz seem the optimal mouthpieces at this point